Science SPACEX "Starship" explodes shortly after launch

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

SPACEX​

"Starship" explodes shortly after launch​

The unmanned "Starship" giant rocket of the US space company SpaceX has exploded during its first test flight. The largest and most powerful rocket ever built took off on Thursday from the SpaceX spaceport Starbase in Boca Chica in the US state of Texas. However, just over three minutes after launch, the rocket detonated, live footage showed.​
Online since today, 3:41 p.m. (Update: 3:57 p.m.)

At that point, the first booster stage called "Super Heavy" should have separated from the "Starship" space shuttle. SpaceX spoke on Twitter of a "rapid unplanned breakup prior to stage separation." "Teams will continue to evaluate data and work toward our next flight test," tech billionaire Elon Musk's company added. The launch was delayed by a few minutes: the countdown had been briefly interrupted to check some more details. Afterwards, the launch was released after all. Actually, the "Starship" of the private space company SpaceX of tech billionaire Elon Musk should have already taken off on Monday for a first short test flight. But that was postponed shortly before the planned launch because of a problem with a valve.

Enormous setback
The "Starship" rocket system - consisting of the roughly 70-meter-long "Super Heavy" booster and the roughly 50-meter-long upper stage, also called "Starship" - is intended to enable manned missions to the moon and Mars in the future. The "Starship" system is in itself designed so that the spacecraft and rocket can be reused after returning to Earth. The explosion, however, is an enormous setback for the initiative. The U.S. space agency NASA has selected "Starship" to fly humans to the moon for the first time in more than 50 years in the Artemis 3 mission at the end of 2025. Even flights to Mars should be possible with the rocket.

First attempt briefly halted
The launch of the 120-meter-high rocket from SpaceX's Starbase spaceport in Boca Chica was stopped on Monday less than ten minutes before the planned ignition. As a kind of dress rehearsal, however, the countdown continued until ten seconds before the originally planned launch time. The reason given for the abort was a technical problem with the pressure equalization on the most powerful space rocket ever built. Musk wrote on Twitter, apparently a valve had frozen. However, he said SpaceX had "learned a lot" from the launch attempt. It was only in February that almost all of the rocket's first stage engines had successfully ignited for the first time during a test in Boca Chica. Musk then declared that the 31 engines ignited in the test were "enough to reach orbit".

Explosion after first landing
Apart from the size and the associated possibility of transporting large loads, the reusability of all rocket components pursued by SpaceX is another central element of the "Starship" program. The declared goal is to significantly reduce the cost of operating spacecraft. SpaceX reported the first successful landing of a prototype in May 2021. Shortly thereafter, the explosion of the rocket made headlines. It was the third explosion within a few months - yet Musk remained convinced that the "Starship" rocket would soon be "safe enough" to transport people.

Youtube Video

Private moon orbit with billionaire and artists
Since last year, SpaceX has been trying to launch its spacecraft into orbit for the first time. At the beginning of the year, Musk had initially set a launch date of February or March - but at the same time made this dependent on the further course of testing. The schedule will be missed by at least a few weeks. A first private space mission is also planned for this year. The Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa recently announced his intention to circumnavigate the moon in a "starship" together with eight artists. The moon will then also be the destination of a mission pursued jointly with NASA.

Central role for NASA moon program

NASA is currently planning to use "Starship" as a landing module in its Artemis program in 2025 at the earliest. The rocket is significantly larger and more powerful than NASA's SLS rocket, which the space agency plans to use to put astronauts into orbit around the moon from 2024.​
1681999822370.png
After several weeks in space, the unmanned "Orion" capsule of NASA's Artemis 1 lunar mission returned to Earth in December

According to NASA plans, the "Starship" mission is dependent on the progress of the Artemis-2 mission. After the Artemis-1 mission, which ended in December with the return of an unmanned Orion space capsule to Earth, a manned orbit of the moon is now on the agenda. The next step will be to bring astronauts to the moon again with the "Starship". NASA put the last humans on the moon in 1972 with the Apollo 17 mission. The USA was the only country to put twelve astronauts on the moon with the Apollo missions between 1969 and 1972.

Space suits ready
Artemis 3 will be much more complex, according to NASA, combining the SLS "Orion" system with spacecraft built and flown by SpaceX. The NASA plan calls for a four-person "Orion" crew to dock in space with a SpaceX lander that will carry two astronauts to the lunar surface for nearly a week.

Twitter | Archive

According to NASA, an orbital fuel depot and a space tanker are required in addition to the Starship. The new space suits developed for the mission in collaboration with Axiom Space were unveiled by NASA in mid-March. In the "Starship" program, the moon is only the first stopover on the first manned mission to Mars, which Musk has already announced for 2029.
red, ORF.at/Agencies

Source (German)
 
New rockets, esp engines, are the most difficult and complicated part of space travel. There is a reason why countries try to reuse even half a century old engines and are willing to hold onto old ones for decades and decades without use. This isn't as simple as taking the time or throwing enough money at it. Testing for new designs is error filled in many cases. They may even find out they need a major riv before even starting to get it right. And once again it's worth pointing out that this is still the early testing phase.
 
And now it blows up not once but TWICE
Last time everything failed at once.

The booster exploded after separation and then later the second stage blew up.
And all of its engines worked on launch, the deluge system prevented a total pad destruction. This is the largest rocket since Saturn V. Two failures uncrewed when they've got several prototypes in reserve and the entire thing is an experiment. What do you expect?
 
New rockets, esp engines, are the most difficult and complicated part of space travel. There is a reason why countries try to reuse even half a century old engines and are willing to hold onto old ones for decades and decades without use. This isn't as simple as taking the time or throwing enough money at it. Testing for new designs is error filled in many cases. They may even find out they need a major riv before even starting to get it right. And once again it's worth pointing out that this is still the early testing phase.
Engines are the tricky part.

Dozens of Saturn V engines blew up on the test rig or flamed-out on test flights before all the bugs, resonance modes and flaws were ironed out so that 5 of them could be more-or-less relied upon to work together.

The ultimate hurdle that the Soviets couldn't clear in the space race was reliable, powerful engines.

They otherwise had everything figured out that you needed for a Moon landing

They had reliable capsules, they had a lunar lander, they had figured out how to do remote roving/sampling and spacewalks, they had perfected staged rockets, they had a process for training up cosmonauts.

They had everything EXCEPT an engine big enough to lift their Saturn V - equivalent rocket, the N1.

They had to resort to strapping THIRTY of the biggest mid-size engines they could build to it and hoping for the best.

Even with an automated computer system to keep the whole array under control that could even automatically shut down engines as needed to correct for asymmetric thrust? The finicky jumble of new and untested engines proved impossible to wrangle. The N1 never managed a successful flight, even unmanned.

In fact, the final attempt to make it work caused what is believed to be the biggest non-nuclear explosion in human history when a fully-fueled N1 blew up only feet into the air after liftoff from one of those 30 engines apparently swallowing a loose bolt and ended with the whole rocket stage exploding in a spectacular chain-reaction mess.

As a result, they couldn't do a single launch of both service module and LEM direct-to-orbit like the US could. They'd have to put their capsule and lander up in pieces on smaller but proven rockets, assemble it in orbit, and THEN head for the Moon, a plan that would take longer and cost more money, and with the US already way ahead, they just kind of wound down the program and swept it under the rug to save face.
 
Last edited:
The booster popping was (imo) probably fuel flow problems from doing that flip so crazy fast. Probably cameras in the tanks plus the engine data will let them sort that out. Had similar problems with the ship flip-and-land testing. What gets me is that upper stage was only about fifteen seconds from going all the way to Hawaii when it popped. Good staging, Good engine run for a long time. Just not the last little bit that would've got it to re-entry. Went for a swim off-shore of Cuba instead. Pad looks pretty much fine so next one might go up fairly quick.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Vecr and Vesperus
Reinvent the wheel, it go boom, Reinvent the wheel, it go boom, Reinvent the wheel, it go boom and so on.
Still it did go relatively better that the last few. I utterly question the purpose of blowing up millions of dollars of shit midair thinking some how this will shortcut the long and painful RnD process. It stinks of desperation.
In the end if your intended capable human rockets explodes its a complete failure.
 
And now it blows up not once but TWICE. The booster exploded after separation and then later the second stage blew up.

This is a disaster; don’t buy the hype it’s “we learn from every failure”.

A d-i-s-a-s-t-e-r.
My nigger, they just tried to launch a 15-story building from the top of another 15-story building, whilst traveling through the upper atmosphere at mach 5 and attempting to save both buildings.

Go and watch your cartoons, faggot.
 
Can someone explain something to me, I'm not a Rocket Scientist and I know that Iteration is the heart of engineering like this but I've heard it said that "The design of Starship and the rockets are inherently flawed" in that while the basic concept might be right the way SpaceX is trying to control them or sequence them is the issue and that's what's casing the failures.
 
The test is set up to fail and fail cheaply, both stages are loaded with extra sensors and act as guniea pigs, so they know how every part either worked or didn't work, if nothing fails, they still crash it back down to earth without trying to recover it.

This is literally how the falcon rockets developed and took over, beating out every other rocket at a fraction of the cost.

If you think spacex is over every time one of these blows up, then you either don't know how spacex works or you're coping. Them actually failing comes down to whether they can improve fast enough for their budget and timeline.

Its a crash test, not the Challenger.
 
Last edited:
Reinvent the wheel, it go boom, Reinvent the wheel, it go boom, Reinvent the wheel, it go boom and so on.
Still it did go relatively better that the last few. I utterly question the purpose of blowing up millions of dollars of shit midair thinking some how this will shortcut the long and painful RnD process. It stinks of desperation.
In the end if your intended capable human rockets explodes its a complete failure.
What novel engineering projects have you delivered successfully? It could be material, computer software, architectural, electrical, automative, anything in something considered a engineering discipline.
 
What novel engineering projects have you delivered successfully?
What a typically stupid response. If I was born with a silver spoon up my ass and sucked the right cock I too could have billions to incinerate in fruitless exercises. The fact is, Musk was born this way and he is blowing billions on bullshit and you are moronic in not seeing that so much value is being wasted for one nutjobs ego.

Can someone explain something to me, I'm not a Rocket Scientist and I know that Iteration is the heart of engineering like this but I've heard it said that "The design of Starship and the rockets are inherently flawed" in that while the basic concept might be right the way SpaceX is trying to control them or sequence them is the issue and that's what's casing the failures.
Details, funnily enough, are light on the ground but observation is that the rockets tend to eat themselves from the inside out from melting or just ouright explode. You can think of most rocket engines are two high speed pumps frantically shoving cryogenic gases into a chamber as fast as possible before the gas freezes or cooks the engine.
This last launch was actually very good since it looks like all the booster rockets worked....then it exploded after separation.
Same thing happened with the starship section, worked great, looked great...boom.
 
Details, funnily enough, are light on the ground but observation is that the rockets tend to eat themselves from the inside out from melting or just ouright explode. You can think of most rocket engines are two high speed pumps frantically shoving cryogenic gases into a chamber as fast as possible before the gas freezes or cooks the engine.
This last launch was actually very good since it looks like all the booster rockets worked....then it exploded after separation.
Same thing happened with the starship section, worked great, looked great...boom.

So it's more like a blow back situation where going with an example from my realm of experience for a second, is like a Oxyacetylene flame travelling back down the line and because there is essentially no flashback arrestor it's getting to the tanks and exploding?
 
What a typically stupid response. If I was born with a silver spoon up my ass and sucked the right cock I too could have billions to incinerate in fruitless exercises. The fact is, Musk was born this way and he is blowing billions on bullshit and you are moronic in not seeing that so much value is being wasted for one nutjobs ego.
Elon Musk has dropped billions on Gwynne Shotwell's chances to outshine NASA, so long as he's in the screenshot.

Which seems to be happening.

You're just salty because you are not a part of it.

That's ok, I'm salty too. But we should try to keep it to ourselves, otherwise we look like whiney bitches.
 
So it's more like a blow back situation where going with an example from my realm of experience for a second, is like a Oxyacetylene flame travelling back down the line and because there is essentially no flashback arrestor it's getting to the tanks and exploding?
Yes, there also some very severe temperature extremes where the fuel side will be brutally cold and the rocket side is brutally hot so the materials used are being stretched to breaking point. You can really start see how serious rocket engineering really is and we haven't even touched on resonance frequencies, impulse etc.
So to your example add the squeezing and flexing of lightweight materials expanding an contracting under both high temperature differential and pressure load.
 
You can think of most rocket engines are two high speed pumps frantically shoving cryogenic gases into a chamber as fast as possible before the gas freezes or cooks the engine.
The engines on the rocket are of a pretty uncommon design as well, methane and oxygen as fuel and no separate gas generator, so there's a lot of heat and pressure in the engines.
 
You're just salty because you are not a part of it.
That's ok, I'm salty too. But we should try to keep it to ourselves, otherwise we look like whiney bitches.
Well I'm glad you have admitted what your issue but don't project on to me, I just want working rockets and pissing billions of dollars up the wall for explosions isn't getting me that.
 
Yes, there also some very severe temperature extremes where the fuel side will be brutally cold and the rocket side is brutally hot so the materials used are being stretched to breaking point. You can really start see how serious rocket engineering really is and we haven't even touched on resonance frequencies, impulse etc.
So to your example add the squeezing and flexing of lightweight materials expanding an contracting under both high temperature differential and pressure load.
Yeah, to continue with the metaphor, imagine trying to use the oxyacetylene torch, without an arrestor, WHILE the tank and wand are both undergoing 5Gs of stress, possibly more if you get a harmonic-feedback or whatever it's called where you hit the natural frequency of the structure and the stresses become cumulative instead of just a load/unload cycle.

Under that kind of load, the tank can fail and dump all the fuel all over the place, or get combustion IN the tank from pressure alone like a diesel engine.
 
Yes, there also some very severe temperature extremes where the fuel side will be brutally cold and the rocket side is brutally hot so the materials used are being stretched to breaking point. You can really start see how serious rocket engineering really is and we haven't even touched on resonance frequencies, impulse etc.
So to your example add the squeezing and flexing of lightweight materials expanding an contracting under both high temperature differential and pressure load.

Yeah, to continue with the metaphor, imagine trying to use the oxyacetylene torch, without an arrestor, WHILE the tank and wand are both undergoing 5Gs of stress, possibly more if you get a harmonic-feedback or whatever it's called where you hit the natural frequency of the structure and the stresses become cumulative instead of just a load/unload cycle.

Under that kind of load, the tank can fail and dump all the fuel all over the place, or get combustion IN the tank from pressure alone like a diesel engine.

Thank you both that was really helpful.
 
I don't get what's so difficult. The richest man in the world, with all of the technology in the world available at his finger tips can't make rocket fly

Yet a bunch of old nerds in the 60's with little help from computers, using cobbled together war-time Nazi tech manager to get three men to the moon.

The fuck you doing Elon? Henry Ford is looking down from Heaven and laughing.
 
Back